Ronald Alexander v. Natick, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20202481)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records December 29, 2020 SPR20/2481 Timothy Luff Assistant Superintendent Office of Student Services Natick Public Schools 13 East Central Street Natick, MA 01760 Dear Superintendent Luff: I have received the petition of Ronald Alexander appealing the response of the Natick Public Schools (School) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Alexander requested the vacation and expense records for an identified individual. Previous appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR20/1944 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 26, 2020). In my October 26th determination, I ordered the School to provide Mr. Alexander with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. Subsequently, the School provided a response on November 4, 2020, which included responsive records. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Alexander petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR20/2481, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the School provided a supplemental response on December 18, 2020. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any town of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Superintendent Timothy Luff SPR20/2481 Page 2 December 29, 2020 order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The School’s November 14th and December 18th responses In its November 14, 2020 response, the School enclosed responsive records in redacted form. In its December 18, 2020 supplemental response, the School explains that the redactions are the identified individual’s “. . . personal credit card statements and account numbers. These documents were redacted as to personal information such as credit card account numbers and personal transactions, and most prior to being submitted to the town for reimbursement. No town related business transactions were redacted.” The School asserts “. . . Exemption (c) . . . the personal privacy exemption applies as the disclosure of such information constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy[.]” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information; also any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Second clause of Exemption (c) - privacy Exemption (c) contains two distinct and independent clauses, each requiring its own analysis. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 432-34 (1983). Only the second clause of Exemption (c) is applicable to this determination. Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Attorney Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Attorney Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Property Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case by case basis. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather,

Superintendent Timothy Luff SPR20/2481 Page 3 December 29, 2020 there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. - - - - - - App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. The School indicated that the redacted portions pertain to the identified individual’s “. . . personal credit card statements and account numbers . . . credit card account numbers and personal transactions. . . [.]” Where the redacted portions relate to the identified individual’s personal financial information, I find the School may permissibly withhold these portions from disclosure. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Alexander is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Ronald Alexander